Pixel Picture Clearer? Google Ports Office-Substitute To Chrome OS, Browser

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pixel Picture Clearer? Google Ports Office-Substitute To Chrome OS, Browser

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @03:10PM from the suite-port,-man dept.

CWmike writes "Google confirmed on Tuesday that it has ported part of QuickOffice to a technology baked into Chrome OS and the company's Chrome browser. The popular iOS and Android app substitute for Microsoft Office that Google acquired last year will run using 'Native Client,' a technology that lets developers turn applications written in C and C++ — originally intended to run in, say, Windows. With that it will execute entirely within a browser, specifically Google's own Chrome. Google claims that Native Client code runs almost as fast inside the browser as the original did outside. QuickOffice viewers come bundled with the $1,300 Chrome OS-based Chromebook Pixel notebook, and Google will add editing functionality in the next two to three months. Does this all make the Pixel make more sense?"

158 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

No.
1. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by Qwavel · 2013-02-26 16:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Agreed, but what does this have to do with the Pixel??
  I can see this as a story about MS vs. Google, or about Google's Native Client technology - which, incidentally, is supported by the Chrome browser. It is not - as this story seems to suggest - limited to ChromeOS or the Pixel.
2. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by multimediavt · 2013-02-26 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  Well put. It still makes no sense because with the exception of the screen it's packed with old or unreasonably spec'd hardware at a ridiculously high price compared to an Apple product (that are supposed to be high priced crap by a lot of /. opinion) that runs a full OS, plus a browser, plus a cloud, plus a lot of other things a real computer can do. Then there's an Android based system with a large app base, extensible, cheaper, more storage (32 GB SSD in the Chrome book Pixel?!?! Seriously?!?!). I could go on with other examples but the amount of negativity is already crushing this thing that one app suite that runs without the cloud is supposed to save this thing?. Not only no, but absolutely no.
3. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by InfoJunkie777 · 2013-02-26 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  I had looked into the Chromebook, as it is a good price. But once I saw it was a "cloud machine" with limited memory, I found many better deals elsewhere, including Google's only Nexus (if one can find one - they seem to be continually "sold out"). But I am confused why Google would do this. They already have Google Docs. Guess I am not up on it. This is "cloud only"? The new Pixel is just ridiculous. Sure the screen is good. I don't even LIKE Apple products. But the Airbook still seems to be a better deal at that price point.
  
  --
  Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
4. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by tlhIngan · 2013-02-26 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  It still makes no sense because with the exception of the screen it's packed with old or unreasonably spec'd hardware at a ridiculously high price compared to an Apple product (that are supposed to be high priced crap by a lot of /. opinion) that runs a full OS, plus a browser, plus a cloud, plus a lot of other things a real computer can do
  Well, you can run Linux on every ChromeBook/Box out there - just flip the developer switch and install Linux.
  Of course, if you're looking for a practical reason for a user who would probably want Windows or OS X.... well....
  you could buy an Apple if you wanted high res, or you could buy an Ultrabook for less and get better value, for most people.
  For /. though, running Linux on it would make sense, though they'd probably just get a MacBook Pro/Retina or an Ultrabook and get a better PC for not a whole lot more.
5. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-26 20:41 · Score: 2
  
  I agree, but only because it already made perfect sense. Google is not trying to make a mass market popular device, they are setting a high bar for Chromebooks to change their image from cheap low end device to luxury laptop.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by MurukeshM · 2013-02-26 20:57 · Score: 2
  
  But when you see that Google intends Pixel+ChromeOS to be more than a toy. If Office, why not, say, GIMP or some audio/video editing software? *That* plus the 1TB-for-3-years - suddenly Pixel+ChromeOS makes a little bit more sense, though I still think its overpriced.
7. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by ciderbrew · 2013-02-26 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  That is a fine thing to want to do. The limitations of the device stops it from being luxury; but it is nice to see that screen being used. Maybe others will take note and we can kick start something better.
8. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by Rockoon · 2013-02-26 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Pixel Picture Clearer?
  Still to cloudy to see.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
9. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by monzie · 2013-02-27 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  some people, yours truly included, prefer the lag-free typing that one gets on a decent-powered desktop app. I have always found lag while using online wordprocessors. They keyboard shortcuts that I use/want-to-use are not present, not properly implemented. There are other reasons. I want to use a stable 'decent' alternate solution which lets me work on the desktop with ease. Right now my choices are limited to LibreOffice and AbiWord/Gnumeric.
10. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by drinkypoo · 2013-02-27 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Google is not trying to make a mass market popular device, they are setting a high bar for Chromebooks to change their image from cheap low end device to luxury laptop.
  Fail, fail. All they have done is produce an expensive low end device, and what makes it low end is the limited OS, which is especially egregious on a powerful system.
  Google should put its effort into Chrome for Android so they can abandon ChromeOS as what it is, an evolutionary dead end.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by rhsanborn · 2013-02-27 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  The limitations of the device stops it from being luxury
  That never stopped Apple. /Cheap_shot
  
  There are limitations, but there were also limitations between Apple and Windows and Linux in any direction. The important question is, are the limitations important enough. This community is power users. But for average users, a generally web based experience may be fine, nay, better. I can't remember how many times people have lost all the digital photos they ever took because backup (to the cloud) didn't happen by default. With this device its built in, etc.
12. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  For the audio / video editing you would still need some serious local storage - and the 64 GB on the Pixel isn't going to cut it for any serious editing work. They really want to push all of this to the cloud - but serious video can't be edited / rendered effectively in the cloud today - at least not the consumer facing cloud as it exists now.
13. Re:Does all this make the Pixel make more sense? by InfoJunkie777 · 2013-02-27 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  some people, yours truly included, prefer the lag-free typing that one gets on a decent-powered desktop app. I have always found lag while using online wordprocessors. They keyboard shortcuts that I use/want-to-use are not present, not properly implemented. There are other reasons. I want to use a stable 'decent' alternate solution which lets me work on the desktop with ease. Right now my choices are limited to LibreOffice and AbiWord/Gnumeric.
  I prefer desktop/laptop too. Speed of response is important. I have not tried AbiWord/Gnumeric. Linux family? Have tried LibreOffice and while it is decent, do prefer OpenOffice more. Even used it when I had access to MS Office. More intuitive and even had a couple of tricks MS Office did not have. Granted, at extremes it might not be usable, but for most people and small businesses, it works well.
  
  --
  Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Grammurh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

I had to re-read this summary multiple times to understand it. I'm not saying it needs to be perfect, I know I'm not, but that summary is just terribly written.
make more sense? by YrWrstNtmr · 2013-02-26 15:17 · Score: 3, Funny

...ported part of QuickOffice...
...add editing functionality in the next two to three months...

"make more sense?"
Not yet, but keep going.
1. Re:make more sense? by cultiv8 · 2013-02-26 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your smartphone can take a picture, right?
  
  --
  sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-26 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google figured out that a computer that runs only cloud based stuff isn't such a good idea. But, since Chrome OS doesn't have native apps, they had to hack those native apps into Chrome, where they run "almost as fast" as they would if they were proper applications under a real OS. As a demonstration of how great this technology is, Google hacked an entire open source office suite into Chrome.
That certainly does explain why you'd want to buy a Chromebook that costs more than an ultrabook or an Air.
It almost sounds like Google wrote the summary... except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.
1. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ...except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.
  You're looking at the glass as half empty instead of half full here. it's a start ....
  I know, folks are penny wise and pound foolish with some of the Chrome book .... of course there's a silver lining here - it will make Chrome OS more usable outside of a dumb terminal for the cloud.
  anyway, I'll make like a tree ....
2. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:49 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  it will make Chrome OS more usable outside of a dumb terminal for the cloud.
  Yeah and if I spray perfume on a dog turd it's slightly less stinky. Yet it still smells like shit.
3. Re:Translation by hawguy · 2013-02-26 15:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Google figured out that a computer that runs only cloud based stuff isn't such a good idea. But, since Chrome OS doesn't have native apps, they had to hack those native apps into Chrome, where they run "almost as fast" as they would if they were proper applications under a real OS. As a demonstration of how great this technology is, Google hacked an entire open source office suite into Chrome.
  That certainly does explain why you'd want to buy a Chromebook that costs more than an ultrabook or an Air.
  It almost sounds like Google wrote the summary... except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.
  Quickoffice isn't open source - it's a proprietary IOS and Android app... Google bought the company last year.
  I'd be more impressed if they *did* port Openoffice/Libreoffice to Chrome.
4. Re:Translation by fermion · 2013-02-26 16:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I would think that it is more an admission that they are not going to be able to get a real office app totally on the cloud, at least not for a profit. I have been really disappointed at the lack of development in Google docs over the past year. They have clearly become bored with the project, and one again gone off on another tangent. That is the thing with Google. No focus, other than collecting user data and selling it, which is fine, but they used to give us good services in return.
  The price point is also confusing. It is $100 more than a MacBook air. I know it comes with an office app, cellular and a touch screen, but OO.org is free, and the Apple office suite is only $60, for all the machines on an account. And a cellular router is only $60, and if you buy it separately you can go with any carrier you want. It is not like this thing is a tablet and you will walking around with it. OTOH, it only comes with 32GB, while that air comes with 128GB. Of course you get 1TB online for 3 years, but we all know how reliable Google is at responding to end user problems. In any case it is a $150 value.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
5. Re:Translation by dbIII · 2013-02-26 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  So you mean the network isn't the computer? How do you Gage that?
  For those that missed the feeble joke the "new" cloud thing was pushed hard by John Gage at Sun around a decade or more ago. The difference now is we've got more bandwidth, better CGI scripts (by whatever name), and the ability to drag in more content from other places than just images hosted elsewhere. I'm not sure what we've got in the way of client side scripting in any better considering all the java problems and active-x being an almost certain malware vector since day one.
6. Re:Translation by Qwavel · 2013-02-26 16:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Your 'translation' is wrong on every point.
  - Native Client apps are cloud apps - they just use a different client technology.
  - Second Chrome OS (and Chrome) does have native apps - via NaCl - and has for a while. This isn't new at all.
  - This isn't hacked into Chrome - it's not part of Chrome at all.
  - There is no way that anyone at Google would want to write such a misleading and confusing summary.
  This is just a new cloud app, that runs on an existing client technology that's been built-into Chrome and Chrome OS for a while.
7. Re:Translation by smi.james.th · 2013-02-26 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps (and I could be wrong here) another reason to buy this Pixel is that it's got decent hardware but isn't going to be troubled by secure-boot and things like that so you can install your own OS on it if you get tired of chrome-OS.
  
  --
  One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
8. Re:Translation by multimediavt · 2013-02-26 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  ...except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.
  You're looking at the glass as half empty instead of half full here. it's a start ....
  I know, folks are penny wise and pound foolish with some of the Chrome book .... of course there's a silver lining here - it will make Chrome OS more usable outside of a dumb terminal for the cloud.
  An IBM Selectric typewriter is more usable than a dumb terminal outside the cloud. What's your point? What you wrote up there didn't make much sense. It's a start to what? The product failing in the marketplace due to poor hardware specification? A nonexistent application base unless you have internet connectivity? (one app suite ain't gonna cut it) Less storage than a tablet unless you have internet connectivity? Because you inverted the meaning of "penny wise and pound foolish"? The glass isn't even close to half anything. It's got a few drops of water in it from where it was cleaned before being put on the store shelf and the bulls are already in the china shop.
9. Re:Translation by wmac1 · 2013-02-26 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  An IBM Selectric typewriter is more usable than a dumb terminal outside the cloud.
  Haha! That was a funny summary of an offline Chrome OS.
10. Re:Translation by unrtst · 2013-02-26 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps (and I could be wrong here) another reason to buy this Pixel is that it's got decent hardware but isn't going to be troubled by secure-boot and things like that so you can install your own OS on it if you get tired of chrome-OS.
  No. It DOES have secure boot on it. It's got a dev mode and a 3rd BIOS slot that boots an more standard bios image (I probably could have phrased that better), but you will still be troubled by secure boot, assuming you find it troubling in the first place. If you choose to use it this way, you're stuck in developer mode, which means it will take 30 seconds longer than usual to load every time you start it, because the boot sequence feels the need to take that time to remind you that you’re in Developer Mode. More info from a google dev that put Linux Mint on it: https://plus.google.com/100479847213284361344/posts/QhmBpn5GNE9
  It's got *some* great hardware, but it's lacking in other areas (memory, local storage, battery life (5hr is good for a full blown laptop, but I'd like to see more from a 12.5" chromebook), physical screen size (2560x1700 makes me want it on a 15"+ screen), no USB 3.0, no eSATA, no ethernet (has wifi)). I'm sure it's perfect for some, but I'm still looking for the one.
11. Re:Translation by Qwavel · 2013-02-26 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  Ah slashdot. Someone writes negative comment that is factually incorrect on every point - modded to 5. I correct their mistakes - modded down to zero. I think it would be more satisfying if the modder had to also respond to my comment.
12. Re:Translation by hawkingradiation · 2013-02-26 17:41 · Score: 2
  
  Actually you can press Ctrl-D to avoid having to wait the extra 30 seconds once you are in developer mode according to the informative link. When are we going to get Chrome(books|boxes) along with Google Play Music and some decent movies of which some have appeared to have been removed on Google Play in Canada? What are the issues? High bandwidth cost with the cell phone providers? Recalcitrance by the content providers? Why not a Wifi version?
  
  --
  Society use your Sciences
13. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  God darnit, Anonymous Coward,, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.
14. Re:Translation by gl4ss · 2013-02-26 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're mixing openoffice with quickoffice.
  openoffice port would have been impressive(and useful).
  quickoffice on the other hand is a document READER application for which google paid an ungodly sum of money for after quickoffices money pipe from Nokia was cut short after nokia finally after 3 years of "really soon now" got their act together and helped MS do the port to symbian for MS's own office tools(which was kinda late anyhow, since symbian at that point was on it's way out - but the point is quickoffice should have been dead for good riddance years ago).
  (and they plan to add editing functionality but that's a lot easier said than done - and they're native apps.. launched by/in the browser process. they're slightly sandboxed of course but native apps anyhow so it is really a case of "hey we don't have native apps! let's run native code!!!!").
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
15. Re:Translation by shitzu · 2013-02-26 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  As a demonstration of how great this technology is, Google hacked an entire open source office suite into Chrome.
  Quickoffice is open source?
16. Re:Translation by iserlohn · 2013-02-26 20:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, it's not just about the software, but the method of delivery of it. Think the App Store/Google Play/Chrome Web Store. With this play, Google is deploying mass-market business applications through a centrally managed repository/marketplace that runs on a portable browser platform. This is Google's vision of the PC, and also the reason why Microsoft has been such a big detractor of Google. If Google can pull this off, Microsoft will go the way of Blackberry.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
17. Re:Translation by kthreadd · 2013-02-26 20:59 · Score: 2
  
  I would be even more impressed if they open sourced Chrome.
18. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  I see what you did there.
19. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry if I've missed your point, but Chrome is as open source as its going to get with the Chromium project, and I don't much care for any proprietary shit that is included in Chrome and not Chromium (that doesn't mean I care for everything that is included in Chromium or would care for the proprietary bits if they were open sourced and included in Chromium.)
20. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 22:31 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe there hasn't been much progress on Google docs over the past year because they have been working on their new aquisition, Quickoffice, behind the scenes and how they can integrate that or technology from it with google docs.
  The progress with the phone version of Android was pretty slow while they were working on the tablet version and how to integrate the two versions back together.
21. Re:Translation by DiamondGeezer · 2013-02-26 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  You suck.
  (As an example of modder feedback)
  
  --
  Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
22. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  This post is so hilariously ignorant on nearly every point.
  How the hell did this get a +5 insightful?
  What the hell has happened on here, are people just as clueless on here as well now?
  Native Client has existed in Chrome for ages now.
  You could enable it manually by activating the flag in the expert options (aka, URL-only options)
  There is no hacking needed, NaCi does all the translation part itself.
  The cloud part, however, that is completely true.
  Cloud-computing won't work for another 2 decades at least, when we actually get a stable network. (that is globally, not just in the awful areas like the UK an US)
23. Re:Translation by polyp2000 · 2013-02-26 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  "almost as fast" as they would if they were proper applications under a real OS
  Just like Windows then...
  
  --
  Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
24. Re:Translation by macs4all · 2013-02-27 02:06 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it's not just about the software, but the method of delivery of it. Think the App Store/Google Play/Chrome Web Store. With this play, Google is deploying mass-market business applications through a centrally managed repository/marketplace that runs on a portable browser platform. This is Google's vision of the PC, and also the reason why Microsoft has been such a big detractor of Google. If Google can pull this off, Microsoft will go the way of Blackberry.
  ...and then all our base belong to Google.
25. Re:Translation by macs4all · 2013-02-27 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  I have been really disappointed at the lack of development in Google docs over the past year. They have clearly become bored with the project, and one again gone off on another tangent. That is the thing with Google. No focus, other than collecting user data and selling it, which is fine, but they used to give us good services in return.
  Exactly.
  
  Google has a very distressing habit of going all-out on a Project, then, even if it is even moderately successful, suddenly saying "Well, we're done with this. Thanks for playing!" Everyone does this to some extent; but Google is even worse about it than Microsoft (I think).
26. Re:Translation by macs4all · 2013-02-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps (and I could be wrong here) another reason to buy this Pixel is that it's got decent hardware but isn't going to be troubled by secure-boot and things like that so you can install your own OS on it if you get tired of chrome-OS.
  Same with a MacBook (any model). No "secure boot" there, and much better build quality, too.
  
  Now, what was your point, again?
27. Re:Translation by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-02-27 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  I know, folks are penny wise and pound foolish with some of the Chrome book .... of course there's a silver lining here - it will make Chrome OS more usable outside of a dumb terminal for the cloud.
  I think Google has slipped up a little here. They were making a compelling argument for Chrome books by offering inexpensive notebooks and selling the power of the Google web infrastructure to provide always up-to-date applications with no need for backups. Of course, this technology is far from being new and it wasn't even invented by Google, but their dominance on the Web could be the push this architecture needs to get it close to mainstream.
  Unfortunately Google may have muddied their message a bit with the Pixel laptop. They are obviously getting impatient and need to make a laptop with specs comparable to the MacBookPro and UltraBooks, however in doing so they abandoned their message that inexpensive could be just as powerful. Also this hack shows that their goal of a standards based web computing platform may not actually be achievable.
  So now we have Google pushing an expensive laptop with ChromeOS that does less than comparable laptops running traditional OS. To try to "right the ship" Google is doing a hack to make an office web application that is more palatable on the Pixel. In doing this we are wondering if Google would have been better off running Android OS on the Pixel instead of or in addition to ChromeOS.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
28. Re:Translation by drinkypoo · 2013-02-27 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ah slashdot. Someone writes negative comment that is factually incorrect on every point - modded to 5. I correct their mistakes - modded down to zero.
  "Native Client apps are cloud apps - they just use a different client technology." What the shit does cloud apps mean, anyway? When you define it then we can proceed to tell you why you're wrong. "This isn't hacked into Chrome - it's not part of Chrome at all." Saying it's "hacked in" doesn't mean anything. It does require Chrome.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
29. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Chromebooks use UEFI secure boot. Thanks for playing, idiot.
30. Re:Translation by Qwavel · 2013-02-27 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  They are separate apps that they are delivered from the cloud (not baked in) and store their data in the cloud (though they can work offline). They are web apps but they use NaCl instead of javascript (often the NaCl apps still use HTML, though I don't know in this case). NaCl is built-in, but the apps that run on it aren't.
  There are some native apps that are 'baked' or 'hacked' into ChromeOS (I believe the photo editor), but QuickOffice is not - that's why this new edition of QuickOffice could just as easily be delivered to regular Chrome browsers while the ChromeOS photo editor can't.
  (Theoretically it requires any web browser that support the NaCl runtime as an alternative to javascript.)
31. Re:Translation by drinkypoo · 2013-02-27 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  They are separate apps that they are delivered from the cloud (not baked in) and store their data in the cloud (though they can work offline). They are web apps but they use NaCl instead of javascript (often the NaCl apps still use HTML, though I don't know in this case). NaCl is built-in, but the apps that run on it aren't.
  It doesn't matter how they are delivered, if they install and run locally then they're installed and run locally, and if they're run from chrome then they're in chrome.
  
  There are some native apps that are 'baked' or 'hacked' into ChromeOS (I believe the photo editor), but QuickOffice is not - that's why this new edition of QuickOffice could just as easily be delivered to regular Chrome browsers while the ChromeOS photo editor can't.
  It could be delivered to them just as easily, but would it run on them? Chrome on Chromebooks is different from Chrome on PCs is different from Chrome on Android.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
32. Re:Translation by Qwavel · 2013-02-27 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  > It doesn't matter how they are delivered, if they install and run locally then they're installed and run locally, and if they're run from chrome then they're in chrome.
  But then how do you distinguish this from regular web apps/pages? Perhaps your use of the word 'install' is your key, but these NaCl apps are no more or less installed then an advanced web apps: they can be cached in the browser, or even pre-cached, but they are still not a component of the OS or of the browser.
  Come to think of it, I'm using Firefox and I have a bunch of add-ons 'installed' in my browser, so I guess the term 'install' is already used for web-apps. Now I'm getting lost in terminology.
  > It could be delivered to them just as easily, but would it run on them? Chrome on Chromebooks is different from Chrome on PCs is different from Chrome on Android.
  Yes. The Chrome browser has supported NaCl for a while. It is mostly used for games.
33. Re:Translation by drinkypoo · 2013-02-27 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  if they install and run locally then they're installed and run locally, and if they're run from chrome then they're in chrome.
  But then how do you distinguish this from regular web apps/pages? Perhaps your use of the word 'install' is your key
  Yep, pretty much. I can't be the only one who remembers Google Gears, either, and offline gmail for firefox. But that got tossed over when Google decided to implement their own browser.
  
  Come to think of it, I'm using Firefox and I have a bunch of add-ons 'installed' in my browser, so I guess the term 'install' is already used for web-apps.
  Well, some extensions are webapps, but some of them are just extensions. Many of the ones that are webapps are also available in another form, like a greasemonkey script.
  
  The Chrome browser has supported NaCl for a while. It is mostly used for games.
  That still doesn't tell us if it has the features needed to run this software. There have been things which ran on the chromebook which didn't run in chrome in the past.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
34. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they're comparing to Windows.
35. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. My mistake. There are so many XX Offices.
36. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think I was thinking of Star Office (which apparently turned semi-proprietary again when Oracle took over). There are so many X Office suites... somebody should think of another naming scheme.
  Quick Office... is that the crappy smartphone reader software?
  If the native code thing is so great I wonder why Google didn't port something more substantial. Possibly because it's difficult and slow?
37. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you're wrong. The Pixel looks like it's less locked down than previous ChromeBooks so you can run Linux on it (although it's easiest to run particular blessed distros) but if you want something else you're out of luck. Or you can get some decent hardware for a similar price from Apple and run OS X, Linux, Windows, BSD or whatever else, or from any of a number of other laptop manufacturers and run any of those except OS X.
38. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see. I wrote my "translation" based on the summary and the article. True, those things are known to be incorrect sometimes. So let's examine your claims (which in another post you claim should be modded up because they are factually correct).
  
  - Native Client apps are cloud apps - they just use a different client technology.
  - Second Chrome OS (and Chrome) does have native apps - via NaCl - and has for a while. This isn't new at all.
  Okay, first, what exactly do you think NaCl stands for (in Google world, I mean. Regular people know it's the chemical formula of table salt). Could it be... "Native Client"? Why yes, it looks like it could be. Your point one and two contradict each other. Secondly, a web app that runs native code sounds very much to me like:
  
  Google figured out that a computer that runs only cloud based stuff isn't such a good idea. But, since Chrome OS doesn't have native apps, they had to hack those native apps into Chrome, where they run "almost as fast" as they would if they were proper applications under a real OS.
  (I said that, by the way, not you)
  Next:
  
  - This isn't hacked into Chrome - it's not part of Chrome at all.
  "Native Client was formerly available as an experimental disabled-by-default feature in the Google Chrome web browser.[2] The feature is enabled from version 14 of Chrome;"
  Sounds like it's part of Chrome to me.
  
  - There is no way that anyone at Google would want to write such a misleading and confusing summary.
  Well, you're half right. Nobody at Google would want to say anything bad about their expensive new product. Well, except the VP who said "You'll never see another Pixel in your life." But that was just a poor choice of words. And I'm sure he wouldn't have capitalized it like that if he'd written it instead of spoken it.
  
  This is just a new cloud app, that runs on an existing client technology that's been built-into Chrome and Chrome OS for a while.
  No, it's a native app with a cloud launcher/downloader that runs through a sandbox and translation/interpretation/emulation/filtering/whatever layer in Chrome, which Chrome OS needs because it must, for some reason, adhere to this idea that the browser IS the OS (like those marketing peons who take Marshall McLuhan's emphatic hyperbole too seriously). Basically, a Java applet, with the added inconvenience that you have to worry about the architecture of the users's machine. So you get to run a native application through a browser, almost as fast as it would run if you just omitted the browser part. Just like I said.
  Thanks, it's nice to realize you're also right when you were just posting a funny over coffee at eight in the morning.
39. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  A good summary, but you're forgetting one thing: we've also got a MUCH better reason to get everyone back to the thin client (although let's try and make those expensive thin clients) and server paradigm: targeted advertising.
40. Re:Translation by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-27 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Next maybe they'll admit that possibly it's not a good idea to run your office suite in your browser at all. They could provide some sort of launcher or task manager or start menu to let you start the web browser and/or the office suite, and let you switch between them!
41. Re:Translation by Qwavel · 2013-02-27 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  >Yep, pretty much. I can't be the only one who remembers Google Gears, either, and offline gmail for firefox. But that got tossed over when Google decided to implement their own browser.
  Gears worked with Chrome too. They killed it in favour of standard HTML5 functionality (though they killed it too soon - the HMTL5 stuff wasn't ready).
  > That still doesn't tell us if it has the features needed to run this software. There have been things which ran on the chromebook which didn't run in chrome in the past.
  Yes, such as the photo editor and the file manager. But the articles about this new 'edition' of QuickOffice say that it uses NaCl and NaCl is the same on Chrome and Chrome OS.
  If there is currently some small dependency on Chrome OS itself, then surely they are working hard to eliminate that - not much point in building this new QuickOffice and have it limited to the tiny # of ChromeOS users, when it could be made available to every Chrome user.
42. Re:Translation by kthreadd · 2013-02-27 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, with that logic Apple's web browser Safari is open source too.
43. Re:Translation by strikethree · 2013-02-27 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  anyway, I'll make like a tree ....
  and nut? ;)
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:19 · Score: 1

$1300 for a netbook? No, thanks.
1. Re:more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  $1300 for a netbook? No, thanks.
  $1500 for the base model?
  No than...oh wait, it's Apple you're talking about? Oh, in that case, let me stand in line for hours and buy two.
  Common Sense and consumer statistics often do not find correlations. Never underestimate the purchasing stupidity of large groups of people wanting to be cool.
What is a browser anyway? by gadzook33 · 2013-02-26 15:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I think anyone has to be impressed by how extensible the browser and HTML has been and how far it's all been able to go, are we going to at some point face the fact that we're using the browser for something it was never intended for? We want a browser experience that feels like a native app, but we shun things like flash and silverlight (and even java!). Don't we need to eventually concede the possibility that something like Silverlight wouldn't be that bad? If it weren't for the MS tie-in, and it was truly an open standard, wouldn't it make more sense than trying to string together HTML and JavaScript in clever ways to accomplish the same thing?
1. Re:What is a browser anyway? by LordLucless · 2013-02-26 15:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If it weren't for the MS tie-in, and it was truly an open standard, wouldn't it make more sense than trying to string together HTML and JavaScript in clever ways to accomplish the same thing?
  Why is "stringing together HTML and Javascript" a bad way of doing things? Really, for these UI-type things, most development models involve you creating "things", stringing them together with "actions" and (possibly) changing the way they look with a "skin". Why is using HTML to define the things, javscript to define the actions, and CSS to describe the skin, a bad idea? Is there a different language for one of those functions that you think is more appropriate to that particular domain for some reason?
  In short HTML+JS+CSS are rapidly (relatively speaking) converging on the capabilities of Flash/Silverlight - and bringing some of their historical strengths (accessibility, separation of content and style, human-readable data formats, open standards, etc) to the table as well. I mean, doesn't Flash even now use a Javascript dialect for its scripting capabilities?
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
2. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  For me, when you tack on the back end language, you end up with a kludge. Also, there still isn't an HTML designer / editor that works as well as the old Win32 designers. After. All. These. Years.
3. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'd prefer to do it all in one language, not three plus the back end, plus the various JS frameworks. It seems like a klugey hack to me based on a model that was not intended to be used the way the web is being used today. We've overextended it. But seems to be typical. Something that was good enough for a limited domain gets extended to cover all scenarios, when there are older and better technologies around. For example, did we have to reinvent everything on the desktop in the browser?
4. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  While I think anyone has to be impressed by how extensible the browser and HTML has been and how far it's all been able to go, are we going to at some point face the fact that we're using the browser for something it was never intended for? We want a browser experience that feels like a native app, but we shun things like flash and silverlight (and even java!). Don't we need to eventually concede the possibility that something like Silverlight wouldn't be that bad? If it weren't for the MS tie-in, and it was truly an open standard, wouldn't it make more sense than trying to string together HTML and JavaScript in clever ways to accomplish the same thing?
  Did you read the summery? This is a native client application: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
  Silverlight and flash are shunned because for all practical purposes they only work in a single runtime environment. That environment places many restrictions on the programer in the name of security, but the security track record of the environment itself is so terrible that it is not clear the user is any better off. Java has a real standard with multiple implementations, but the only widely deployed runtime has a terrible security record.
  "Something like silverlight", but with the following properties, would be wonderful:
  * As performant as compiled code, or very close.
  * An open spec anyone can implement, and be sure they will not be sued later.
  * At least one widely used open implementation.
  * Works on the top three consumer OSes.
  * A solid security track record.
  Native client meets these criteria.
5. Re:What is a browser anyway? by recoiledsnake · 2013-02-26 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yet:
  "Although Google has debuted a partial native client edition of QuickOffice on Chrome OS and plans to wrap up the port on that platform, there are no technical barriers that prevent the finished application from also running within the Chrome browser on Windows, OS X and Linux.
  Google declined to comment on whether or when it will offer QuickOffice for Chrome."
  
  --
  This space for rent.
6. Re:What is a browser anyway? by wmac1 · 2013-02-26 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I created a web based ERP system in last 3 years and I feel that with every cell of my body.
  JavaScript is not suitable for large scale development, even with frameworks (We use JQuery). It is difficult to introduce structure into it, it does not handle typed variables well and several other shortcomings. It was not supposed to be used for large scale serious applications in my opinion.
  Html itself is a messy language (if at all).
7. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Dynedain · 2013-02-26 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't consider JQuery a framework, and if that's what you were looking for, no wonder you had problems. JQuery is a nice collection of shortcuts with a selector engine and some cross-platform abstraction, that over time has grown into something more powerful simply because of how common it is. It's getting better, especially as they throw away some backwards compatibility with older versions, but I wouldn't use it as my starting point for a full web app or an ERP system.
  If you wanted an honest-to-goodness framework, you should at least have gone with MooTools (which was built ground-up to be a cleaner object-oriented solution), or a full Framework.
  
  --
  I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
8. Re:What is a browser anyway? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-26 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  I would be reluctant to claim a "solid security track record", until we start actually seeing active use of NaCl.
9. Re:What is a browser anyway? by LordLucless · 2013-02-26 18:03 · Score: 2
  
  I'd prefer to do it all in one language, not three plus the back end
  Why? You don't use C++ to query a database do you? Why would you use it to describe a visual style? It's a procedural programming language, not a stylesheet language. Horses for courses.
  
  plus the various JS frameworks
  What, you never use any common libraries for your non-web code? That's all those JS frameworks are - useful, general functions collected into a library.
  
  ...gets extended to cover all scenarios, when there are older and better technologies around. For example, did we have to reinvent everything on the desktop in the browser?
  Bad example. An app that runs on the desktop is not comparable to one that performs the same function in a browser. For one, the browser app is inherently accessible remotely; it almost certainly stores files remotely, and is orders of magnitude easier to make cross-platform than your average desktop app (unless it was written explicitly with cross-platformness in mind, and often even then).
  When people started wanting apps that were accessible from multiple devices, accessing files stored in a central, remote location, browser-based applications started taking off. Not because they were new and shiny, but because they were doing something the desktop ones didn't.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
10. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Serious+Callers+Only · 2013-02-26 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  The problems with HTML/web arise because it is stateless, browsers differ in their implementation, and the only language available on the front end is js, which is not terrible, but not beautiful either, and content is not always separated from code.
  The many advantages of HTML/web come from the fact that it is stateless, most operations are idempotent and cachable, URIs can be shared, and that it's so simple even humans can create it by hand (and getting simpler with html5), readers get to control presentation and parse content, writers get to use any language on the server, content is easy to separate from code, there is no one way to do things or awful widget library, and browsers are constantly pushing the envelope.
  Personally I don't want a browser experience just like a native app, there are several aspects of web apps which I'd like to keep - urls, fast updates, stateless operation, control over presentation, open data, and many from a dev perspective, chief amongst which is i don't need to rely on a platform vendor at all, and deal with their annoying toolkit and their currently blessed technology of the year.
  The only thing I'd change about html dev is a better front end language (ideally a sandboxed vm shared by all browsers on which people can port whatever language they want) and a faster protocol like spdy, otherwise it's really not bad compared to mobile or desktop app dev, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
11. Re:What is a browser anyway? by theVarangian · 2013-02-26 20:48 · Score: 2
  
  If it weren't for the MS tie-in, and it was truly an open standard, wouldn't it make more sense than trying to string together HTML and JavaScript in clever ways to accomplish the same thing?
  Why is "stringing together HTML and Javascript" a bad way of doing things? Really, for these UI-type things, most development models involve you creating "things", stringing them together with "actions" and (possibly) changing the way they look with a "skin". Why is using HTML to define the things, javscript to define the actions, and CSS to describe the skin, a bad idea? Is there a different language for one of those functions that you think is more appropriate to that particular domain for some reason?
  In short HTML+JS+CSS are rapidly (relatively speaking) converging on the capabilities of Flash/Silverlight - and bringing some of their historical strengths (accessibility, separation of content and style, human-readable data formats, open standards, etc) to the table as well. I mean, doesn't Flash even now use a Javascript dialect for its scripting capabilities?
  I have used 'Office' apps written in HTML+Javascript as well as poor-mans Visio substitutes written in Flash and while they were useful for casual note taking they quickly reached their limits once I wanted to do a bit more like add references, automatically indexed figures and captions, figure and tables indexes, tables of content, etc. With drawing programs written in Flash it was pretty much the same story plus only begin able to export your drawings in some strange Flash format or JPG/PNG/etc. wasn't exactly condusive to portability. While I'm sure these features can be added, it still seems that no matter how hard the developers try they never seem to be able to get the user experience consistent accross different browsers. Finally, while native apps can also be buggy and badly designed from a UI perspective with these HTML+Javascrip webapps you get an addititonal category of bugs and annoyances that are down to Javascript being used to try and make something inherently stateless like HTML into a statefull event driven app. This is even the case with Google Docs which is one of the better alternatives.
12. Re:What is a browser anyway? by TuringTest · 2013-02-26 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's because HTML is a semantic language, not a visual language. A designer would work against the languages purpose, and only serve for limited purposes. (There are *lots* of HTML designers that work "as well as Win32" for limited purposes, btw.)
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
13. Re:What is a browser anyway? by gadzook33 · 2013-02-27 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that statelessness is almost always a desirable trait. However, it's not a trait that is unique to HTML. When you include the back end in this and consider RIA type applications, it becomes even murkier. You're going to be hard pressed to make the argument that gmail exhibits idempotency. At the same time, it's a rather useful tool!
14. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's not a bad way of doing things, but neither was FORTRAN. That doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job. I'm not promoting flash here, but a framework/engine like Silverlight accomplishes all the things you just listed and enables a much greater level of productivity (in my opinion) than HTML/JS/CSS. We still don't have great tool sets for quickly developing good solutions using those techs (yes, I know people are going to argue this isn't true but if you reasonably compare what's available to other technologies, it's not even close).
15. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Motard · 2013-02-27 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why HTML is not very good for doing visual things. HTML's original purpose is directly at odds with the roles it is being asked to perform today.
16. Re:What is a browser anyway? by drinkypoo · 2013-02-27 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't we need to eventually concede the possibility that something like Silverlight wouldn't be that bad? If it weren't for the MS tie-in, and it was truly an open standard, wouldn't it make more sense than trying to string together HTML and JavaScript in clever ways to accomplish the same thing?
  No, and maybe, in that order. Nothing wrong with Javascript, you're going to need a programming language no matter what your solution looks like and you'll wind up with the same security issues no matter what. And HTML is designed for displaying text and works fine for displaying graphics, so if what you need to do is display some text and graphics, why shouldn't you use HTML?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re:What is a browser anyway? by DragonWriter · 2013-02-27 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  While I think anyone has to be impressed by how extensible the browser and HTML has been and how far it's all been able to go, are we going to at some point face the fact that we're using the browser for something it was never intended for?
  No, because what browsers are intended for has changed.
  
  We want a browser experience that feels like a native app, but we shun things like flash and silverlight (and even java!).
  This is simply equivocation: the "we" isn't the same group in both parts of this sentence? The people who I've seen who shun those kinds of technologies very often state that they prefer apps that "feel like native apps" to actually be native apps, not part of the "browser experience".
  
  Don't we need to eventually concede the possibility that something like Silverlight wouldn't be that bad?
  The people that want pure native apps and don't want native-like web apps certainly don't need to concede anything of the sort. The people that want native-quality web-delivered apps obviously need some kind of platform that can provide that, though there is no reason the appropriate low-level functionality built into browsers and exposed through HTML elements and/or JavaScript APIs and tied together with JavaScript code can't do virtually all of that; the main problem is defining what the base functionality needed is, getting the appropriate HTML elements and JavaScript APIs widely supported, and the fact that it means building new apps from the ground up to migrate from existing native apps.
  Where technologies that let you use something very similar to the desktop code for web apps with native performance (Java, Silverlight, and Native Client all fit this description to a certain degree, though they aren't necessarily deeply similar) helps this isn't so much in making native-app-like performance practical as in facilitating porting existing native apps, or in easing the process of developing native and web apps in parallel. This is useful (and helps address a chicken-and-egg problem in establishing native-quality web-delivered applications), but isn't really all that fundamentally essential to building them.
18. Re:What is a browser anyway? by LordLucless · 2013-02-27 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  but a framework/engine like Silverlight accomplishes all the things you just listed and enables a much greater level of productivity (in my opinion) than HTML/JS/CSS.
  Yeah, but why? Is it the IDE used for generating Silverlight apps? If so, is there something about the underlying code Silverlight generates that makes it more amenable to being managed by an IDE than HTML+JS+CSS? If so, what are the features that make it so? How much effort is it to incorporate those sort of features into HTML+JS+CSS?
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
19. Re:What is a browser anyway? by Serious+Callers+Only · 2013-02-28 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  It should in my opinion have resource urls for each message, that's a design flaw that they get away with because its a closed web app used by one person with no information sharing. I their other apps like calendars they use stateless Uris for each doc though for obvious reasons.
  Others who have tried this on the open web, like twitter and their crazy hashbang, have been roundly condemned for it and usually given up as its throwing away one of the biggest advantages on the web.
20. Re:What is a browser anyway? by TuringTest · 2013-02-28 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  I agree to some degree. HTML is not good for doing exact visuals, but it's still great for delivering content to a myriad of different platforms and devices.
  The only error is in trying to make it pixel-perfect.
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Coherence by gmuslera · 2013-02-26 15:31 · Score: 1

Or is meant to be a cloud computer, or is not (and it have too little hard disk to not be). There are things that have sense to run locally (i.e. some games), but for Google strategy the only fitting office alternative is a local version of google docs (for editing offline), not another different office suite, with different formats, different functionality, and not meant to be edited online.
Sounds like the best of both worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:34 · Score: 0

The productive UI of a web browser combined with the Internet security of a native application.
1. Re:Sounds like the best of both worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  I heard they are re-branding Native Client as ActiveNC.
Everything old is new again by imsabbel · 2013-02-26 15:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hurray to Google for re-inventing ActiveX. May they have just as much success as Microsoft with it.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
1. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  This. POTD
2. Re:Everything old is new again by Qwavel · 2013-02-26 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  Native client is open-source; activeX was not. That has very real implications: though I doubt we'll see MS adopt, there is a very real possibility that Firefox and Opera could.
  Look at SPDY for comparison. Google added it to Chrome, now Amazon, Opera, Firefox, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are all using it.
3. Re:Everything old is new again by ozmanjusri · 2013-02-26 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's more like everything old is still old.
  Given that Native Client has been around for five years now, don't you think you've had enough time to learn that it's NOT like ActiveX?. Try Googling Native Client vs ActiveX to get yourself started.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
4. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of ActiveX was delivered as "shared source" (source code available but under Microsoft's copyright) in the form of a Visual Studio component called Active Template Library (ATL). That didn't help with the security issue - an ActiveX component could do just about anything that an shrink-wrapped application could (MS eventually added some weak sandboxing, but they were too little, too late).
5. Re:Everything old is new again by Qwavel · 2013-02-26 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  No. ATL was for developers to write components compatible with ActiveX - that's different then making ActiveX itself open-source.
  And, as you point out, MS's license ensured that no one else adopted it. It was meant as a proprietary extension.
  Google mostly uses standard open-source licenses, like GPL and Apache - that's why their technologies get adopted.
6. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-26 18:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The big difference between ActiveX and NaCl is that the latter has a sandbox - a very smart one, actually, which lets it run native code directly while remaining secure.
  The other big difference is that they are also tackling the architecture portability issue by the PNaCl project (basically downloading LLVM bitcode and compiling it for the current architecture).
  So, yes, this is like ActiveX - but done right. All the perf of native code with none of the security issues.
  I really, really hope it catches on - especially PNaCl. If it does, we can finally ditch JS as the web client language, and move on to something more decent (and better yet, you and me can make different choices about the languages that we want to use).
7. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-26 18:11 · Score: 2
  
  What do you mean by "ActiveX was not open source"? ActiveX is a protocol, a specification - a bunch of ABIs (COM) and APIs. IE is closed-source, yes, but you can definitely have another browser support ActiveX controls (in fact, Mozilla was halfway there with XPCOM, and someone actually wrote a plugin for it that lets it host ActiveX controls). For that matter, ActiveX was never IE-specific - any Windows app can host a control, and many apps do, both those from Microsoft and third-party ones. It does not require any secret magic closed source code.
  The real problem is that ActiveX controls are inherently non-portable, because the API is Windows-centric - for example, it deals in things like Win32 device context and window handles.
8. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  Hurray to Google for re-inventing ActiveX.
  Reinventing Java, more like. NaCl,like Java, uses a virtual machine for security. ActiveX uses code signing. The latter is bad because it increases the attack surface of your computer with the contents of every signed program in existence. The former - does not. As long as the VM is secure, you're secure.
9. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 19:10 · Score: 0
  
  Nope NaCl doesn't use a VM. It places constraints on the native code generation to ensure no illegal access will take place. Stop spreading fud, intentionally or not
10. Re:Everything old is new again by BZ · 2013-02-26 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  NaCl is open source but tied to totally undocumented Chrome internals via Pepper, which makes it pretty hard to adopt without adopting Chrome wholesale.
  Worse yet, NaCl is tied to particular hardware, which means that if it gets traction on the web the bar for a new hardware platform would become very high (think "ARM would not have been viable if this had happened 15 years ago" high). PNaCl, if/when it starts working would help with that problem, but not the Pepper dependency.
11. Re:Everything old is new again by kthreadd · 2013-02-26 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome itself is actually not open source.
12. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm... Running sandboxed applications in a browser... What a novel idea! What could possibly go wrong?
13. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Because sandboxes *never* have exploits right?
14. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  The big difference between ActiveX and the Java plugin is that the latter has a sandbox - a very smart one, actually, which lets it run native code directly while remaining secure.
  The other big difference is that they are also tackling the architecture portability issue by downloading Java bytecode and interpreting or compiling it for the current architecture.
15. Re:Everything old is new again by drinkypoo · 2013-02-27 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean by "ActiveX was not open source"? ActiveX is a protocol, a specification - a bunch of ABIs (COM) and APIs.
  Yes, and none of the relevant code was Open-Sourced. I suspect that's what they meant when they said that. You know, what they said.
  
  The real problem is that ActiveX controls are inherently non-portable, because the API is Windows-centric - for example, it deals in things like Win32 device context and window handles.
  The problem isn't that they're non-portable, the problem is that the Windows API stinks on ice for every reason.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:Everything old is new again by cardpuncher · 2013-02-27 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  All the perf of native code with none of the security issues
  I have a perpetual motion machine and am seeking investors. I take it you'll be subscribing?
17. Re:Everything old is new again by CaptainAx · 2013-02-27 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, this has Javastation written all over it. I thought we wanted open source. Why are all these companies going back to walled gardens?
18. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-27 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know - ask JavaScript guys, they've been doing it for two decades now.
19. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-27 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how the sandboxing is implemented. I suggest you read the paper about NaCl - it is a really clever technique that puts it at least on par with any interpreter in terms of exploitation vectors, if not better. At which point it's no more a security risk than JS.
20. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-27 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't you go and read the original paper on NaCl? I know it's considered a novel concept on Slashdot, and somewhat faux pas (you are the 4th person to reply to my comment who apparently didn't do it), but still, try it. I promise I won't tell anyone.
  As a side note, no perfect security was claimed here - only that security challenges specific running to native code are handled by NaCl sandbox, making it as safe as, say, JavaScript.
21. Re:Everything old is new again by coder111 · 2013-02-27 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's not as bad as you think. From a machine point of view, if the code is compiled or not doesn't make much difference. Let's say you have to execute code in a sandbox. Which would be more secure?
  
  * Interpreted source code.
  * Interpreted source code with a JIT compiler that produces native implementations of hotspots.
  * Interpreted intermediate representation of source code
  * Bytecode that's executed in a virtual machine
  * Native code that's executed in a sandbox
  
  In all these cases, you are running untrusted code. In all these cases there is a chance that your VM/interpreter will allow an an attacker to get through. Consider a Java JVM- it's quite big, hence the chance of a vulnerability hiding somewhere is quite big. I don't believe current JS interpreters with JITs are that simple either. So you could even argue that if your sandbox is very low level and close to hardware, it can have fewer possible attack vectors, the defence against them is simpler and hence the whole thing is safer. We have been using virtualization, protected pages and NX bits and related for a while now. And doing static analysis on any of these things is identical from machine point of view, so no difference there.
  
  I'm still wary of Google NaCl, but not because of underlying idea. It's just too new and unproven for my taste yet. And it doesn't run on all browsers. And like making sure my apps are cross-plaform, I like my apps to be cross-browser, so that is a deal-breaker for me.
  
  --Coder
22. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the exception is that Google engineers are actually smart.
23. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know - ask JavaScript guys, they've been doing it for two decades now.
  You mean how they've been fucking it up for two decades?
  Drive-by downloads in IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari. (Note: I'm talking about vulnerabilities in the browser itself, not the added pieces of crap like flash/java/silverlight)
24. Re:Everything old is new again by terjeber · 2013-02-27 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Native Client is a security disaster waiting to happen. Java (as in applets) is more secure than NaCl, since it offers run-time privilege checking while NaCl only supports static checking. At its base it is exactly like ActiveX in the later years (when MS added static checking) - in other words, something IT professionals should ban on their networks.
  If you have to have applications, write Java applets or Silverlight stuff. Both work. Both are significantly safer than NaCl, and both are used very little. Apps and Browsers, never the twain shall meet.
25. Re:Everything old is new again by terjeber · 2013-02-27 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  At which point it's no more a security risk than JS
  You had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek when you wrote that? If not, google JavaScript exploits. There have been many. Once they give full access to your graphics drivers, watch the number of exploits go way up.
  Seems like nobody in the industry reads history books about the industry.
26. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-27 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, I did not. We already have JS, and it won't go anywhere unless replaced by something better. And the replacement only has to be as good as JS itself is, security-wise.
27. Re:Everything old is new again by terjeber · 2013-02-27 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  won't go anywhere unless replaced by something better
  and that is called "just about anything but not ActiveX or ActiveX light (aka NaCl).
28. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-27 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly are your problems with NaCl?
  ActiveX was vilified - and rightly so - because it had no meaningful security model whatsoever, no sandbox. It just ran the downloaded code, with full privileges of your user account. This is very different from NaCl.
29. Re:Everything old is new again by terjeber · 2013-02-27 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly are your problems with NaCl?
  It is yet another attack vector in the browser. There have been many, they have all had serious problems. NaCl is certainly not more secure than Java, and look at that track record. Now there will be (for most people) JS, Java, Silverlight, Flash etc, and for Chrome users, all of the above PLUS NaCl. That makes the browsing experience less secure. We need fewer attack vectors, not more. NaCl doesn't solve a single problem that wasn't already solved, and it is therefore utterly unneeded. Adding unneeded attack vectors to browsers is just plain stupid.
30. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-27 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is yet another attack vector in the browser. There have been many, they have all had serious problems. NaCl is certainly not more secure than Java, and look at that track record.
  
  Actually, NaCl is quite likely to be more secure than Java, because JVM is more complicated - it's a highly optimized JIT, so by definition it generates code at runtime and then runs it. If you can somehow mess it up, it is a very nice setup for remote code execution. NaCl, in contrast, involves no codegen, and its sandboxing scheme puts very few limitations on the kind of code that it can safely sandbox (which also means that the verifier is simple, and less likely to be buggy).
  
  Now there will be (for most people) JS, Java, Silverlight, Flash etc, and for Chrome users, all of the above PLUS NaCl.
  How many people do you actually know with Silverlight installed? And Flash is going away as well, slowly but surely. Now if only we could do the same with JS...
  
  NaCl doesn't solve a single problem that wasn't already solved, and it is therefore utterly unneeded.
  The problem that NaCl solves is being able to write apps in the browser without artificial limitations imposed by the language and the sandbox. JS, aside from having crappy design, is just too high-level - if you don't like its semantics, that's too bad, because trying to wrap it in another layer results in pretty bad perf. What's needed is a simple VM that runs portable bytecode that is as low-level as possible (ideally, somewhere on the same level as LLVM bitcode), as fast as possible. This way we remove any future constraints on language design for browser apps (you want to use C? feel freet; want JS? you can, as well, and you get to pick out of half a dozen different implementations of it, to boot), and get perf for all imaginable kinds of apps. PNaCl is the only solution that I am aware of that truly covers all these scenarios. Silverlight could have been it, if it was portable, and allowed you to run unverifiable bytecode. Java applets never even came close, and neither did Flash. And JS is a joke of a language and (as used in browsers today) a framework.
31. Re:Everything old is new again by terjeber · 2013-02-27 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  How many people do you actually know with Silverlight installed?
  Quite a few since a few fairly high profile websites require it, but that's irrelevant. Whether people use Silverlight or not is not an argument for adding yet another attack vector. Since NaCl promises cross-platform abilities, gode-gen is required - compile time or run time. Whether that code gen happens only at compile time (which was the case for Java a few years back) or goes through optimizations at run-time is not particularly relevant. There will be (and have been in NaCl) security holes. To think that we have nailed them all is absurd. There is always problems in software, some turn out to be serious. Remember, NaCl will be updated in the future and new errors will be added. That is always the case. You can't verify that software is safe. Not even theoretically. There is only one kind of bug-free software, the kind that doesn't do anything.
  The way to stay safe is to add no new, or at least as few as possible, attack vectors. NaCl doesn't solve any problem that isn't already solved - I don't buy your argument that we need native-level performance in a browser, so it is not needed. Adding something that is not needed but is or will become an attack vector is fundamentally flawed (and stupid).
  
  if you don't like [JavaScript's] semantics, that's too bad, because trying to wrap it in another layer results in pretty bad perf
  Not true. Look at what Anders Hejlsberg (of Turbo Pascal, Delphi and C# fame) is doing with JavaScript right now. It's good and it adds no performance penalties since it compiles to good (and readable) JavaScript.
  
  Silverlight could have been it, if it was portable
  The CIL is, but Silverlight uses some Windows only features, so that is out.
32. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-28 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  The way to stay safe is to add no new, or at least as few as possible, attack vectors.
  You are still missing my point. We need to get rid of existing crap, then we can and should add the new and better stuff.
  
  The way to stay safe is to add no new, or at least as few as possible, attack vectors. NaCl doesn't solve any problem that isn't already solved - I don't buy your argument that we need native-level performance in a browser, so it is not needed.
  I don't buy your argument that we don't need native-level performance in a browser. It's trivially disproven by just looked at the kind of apps that you can see running in the browser today.
  Besides, it was only half of my argument. The other half was that a decent VM is necessary to enable language/framework choice for developers, which is currently severely constrained by JS.
  
  Not true. Look at what Anders Hejlsberg (of Turbo Pascal, Delphi and C# fame) is doing with JavaScript right now. It's good and it adds no performance penalties since it compiles to good (and readable) JavaScript.
  I know very well what TypeScript is, and it's nothing that I talked about. It's pretty much just a bunch of ES6 features, with optional compile-time-only static typing added on top. Of course it compiles to readable JavaScript - it's very close to it! It's still too-high-level, and still retains too much of JS stupidity.
  On the other hand, anything that is considerably different from JS has to be compiled to something rather inefficient - see the various Java-to-JS, C#-to-JS and bytecode-to-JS translators for examples.
33. Re:Everything old is new again by terjeber · 2013-02-28 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  You are still missing my point. We need to get rid of existing crap
  I would not call Java crap, and for the enterprise, removing it isn't an option. Tons of enterprise apps are still relying on ancient ActiveX enabled browsers. Re-writing simply isn't an option. Since Java is not going to go away - we'll have to have that fixed and not add new problems.
No it does not by Taantric · 2013-02-26 16:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Still just the world's most expensive web browser. What a useless device. Someone at Google made a boo-boo.
Cloud fail? by recoiledsnake · 2013-02-26 16:32 · Score: 1

Whatever happens to their sales pitch for Google Docs for enterprise?

--
This space for rent.
1. Re:Cloud fail? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? This is still Google Docs. I think the mis-leading summary has confused people.
Does this all make the Pixel make more sense? by Goody · 2013-02-26 16:34 · Score: 1

If all you wanted in the first place was an Internet-dependent dumb terminal, errrr "cloud device", it already made sense. If you want more than that, it will never make sense for that price. Sounds like Google fan boys are suffering from the same madness they claim Apple fan boys have.

--
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
This could actually sink Chrome altogether by popo · 2013-02-26 17:05 · Score: 1

It was ActiveX that almost single handedly drove users away from Internet Explorer. ActiveX was a massive security problem from day one and was always an incredibly easy venue for malicious code.
It's not clear to me whether this ability to execute code is intended solely for Chrome OS, or whether it is intended for all versions of the Chrome browser. If the intent is the latter, this has a good chance of driving users en masse away from Chrome as Google's security nightmare is probably just beginning.

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
1. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's in all versions of Chrome. It's much, much more secure than ActiveX -- but that's mostly because ActiveX was not secure at all. NaCl was built from the ground up to be secure, within a sandbox with a contained instruction set.
  
  It's not clear to me whether this ability to execute code is intended solely for Chrome OS, or whether it is intended for all versions of the Chrome browser
  Did you even bother to Google what you were unclear on before blathering about your unclarity on the Internet? Here, let me help you with that... ah yes, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
  
  The feature is enabled from version 14 of Chrome
2. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by CommanderK · 2013-02-26 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  If the intent is the latter, this has a good chance of driving users en masse away from Chrome as Google's security nightmare is probably just beginning.
  Except Native Client was designed with security in mind from the beginning, and they take this very seriously. NaCl enforces some restrictions on the running binary that prevent it from interacting with the rest of the system; ActiveX never really had that. A while ago, there was a Native Client security contest where they challenged the community to break their sandbox ( https://developers.google.com/native-client/community/security-contest/ ).
3. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  security nightmare is probably just beginning
  Except the Java plugin was designed with security in mind from the beginning, and they take this very seriously.
  The JVM enforces some restrictions on the running binary that prevent it from interacting with the rest of the system.
4. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by DragonWriter · 2013-02-27 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's not clear to me whether this ability to execute code is intended solely for Chrome OS, or whether it is intended for all versions of the Chrome browser.
  
  Native Client has been in all versions of Chrome (well, except Chrome for iOS) and enabled-by-default for apps from the Chrome Web Store since Chrome 14; there are a number of apps that leverage it in the store.
  
  If the intent is the latter, this has a good chance of driving users en masse away from Chrome as Google's security nightmare is probably just beginning.
  The reality, not merely the intent, has been the latter for quite some time, and it hasn't driven users away from Chrome.
  You really have no idea what you are talking about here.
5. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by terjeber · 2013-02-27 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The JVM even has run-time security checks, NaCl doesn't. NaCl is less secure than Java and just a tiny bit more secure than ActiveX (which had static checking/sandboxing towards the end).
6. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by CommanderK · 2013-02-27 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  The original poster's point was that NaCl is less secure because it runs native code, which I disagree with. I'm not comparing to the JVM, only to ActiveX. My opinion is that NaCl, the JVM and current JavaScript engines are about the same security-wise, and much better than ActiveX.
7. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by CommanderK · 2013-02-27 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on what you're checking for. NaCl restricts applications to a limited memory region and instruction set, with no possibility of interaction with the outside world. NaCl applications have no direct way of violating these restrictions, so there's no need for checks. On the other hand, both NaCl and JVM have a lot of security checks in the APIs visible to the sandboxed programs, since that's where exploits pop up. If I were an attacker, that's what I would use to break a sandboxed application. I'm not convinced that NaCl is less secure than the JVM in that regard.
8. Re:This could actually sink Chrome altogether by terjeber · 2013-02-27 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  NaCl restricts applications to a limited memory region and instruction set, with no possibility of interaction with the outside world
  As does Java. Supposedly. NaCl is just another attack vector, and it will fail. There was no need for Google to create yet another attack vector in the browser. They did anyway.
Slashvertisement by mystikkman · 2013-02-26 17:33 · Score: 1

>Google will add editing functionality in the next two to three months
What? An Office suite without editing functionality on a $1300 device? Computers were more capable in the 70s and 80s.
Also look at the summary from the story yesterday about HP making Android tablets:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/02/25/2129208/hp-continuing-to-flee-windows-reservation-with-android-tablet?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

"Hewlett-Packard seems more determined than ever to flee the Windows reservation, unveiling a $170 Android tablet, the HP Slate 7. It runs Google Android 4.1, the first version of the 'Jelly Bean' build, which has been ever so slightly outdated by the recent release of Android 4.2. This isn't the first time in recent memory that HP's opted for a Google product over one offered by longtime partner Microsoft. As it helpfully pointed out in a press release, HP has produced a Chromebook running Google's Chrome OS, a largely cloud-dependent operating system for laptops and notebooks. Built around Google services such as Gmail, Chrome OS also offers access to the Chrome Web Store, an online storefront for apps. If HP and other manufacturers increasingly adopt Google's offerings over Windows, it could cause some consternation among Microsoft executives. Microsoft, of course, is pushing Windows 8, which is meant to run on tablets and traditional PCs with equal facility. If it wants the Windows division to continue as a cash cow, it needs manufacturers to adopt that operating system in massive numbers. Android and Chrome OS could make that strategy a lot more difficult."
What has Chrome OS got to do with HP making Android tablets that it deserves a huge section of the summary to shill it?
The shilling and astroturfing is heavy here.
Nope by wiredlogic · 2013-02-26 18:01 · Score: 1

It's still an overpriced thin client with a nice screen.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Will it run Windows 8? by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-02-26 18:21 · Score: 1

I'm curious to know how Windows 8 will run on this thing. W8 is supposed to be designed to run well on a wide variety of pixel densities. This thing's got a ton of pixels and a touchscreen. Should me a match made in heaven. It's a bit low on RAM and storage but it's enough to install and run the OS and a full suite of productivity apps.
1. Re:Will it run Windows 8? by enec · 2013-02-26 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 8's handling of HiDPI displays still leaves a lot to wish for. There is still just one "right" DPI setting, the "normal" scaling and anything other than that causes small artifacts on some apps due to the text being scaled up but some other elements not. It gets even worse if you connect an external monitor that has a lower pixel density and thus should use a lower DPI setting. You can't set different DPI's for different displays so one of them ends up looking ugly and just a bit off.
  This is something that OSX does great. I have a Macbook Pro with the 220 ppi Retina display and a 27" Thunderbolt display. They use different DPI values and the transition is seamless even when dragging windows from one screen to the other. If I boot to Windows one display becomes basically useless. Either everything is way too small on the Retina display or everything is way too big on the external monitor.
  But anyways, the Pixel is a normal x86 machine so I'd imagine it should be possible to install other operating systems on it.
  
  --
  I'm sorry, I only accept criticism in the form of sed expressions.
2. Re:Will it run Windows 8? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is the link (can't tell since the employer blocks Google+ since it's allegedly a "social network"):
  https://plus.google.com/100479847213284361344/posts/QhmBpn5GNE9
  In dev mode, you can activate a SeaBIOS slot to boot alternative operating systems.
3. Re:Will it run Windows 8? by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-02-27 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's a shame. I wonder how well Chrome will handle mismatched DPIs. The device has a mini displayport so they have to expect that external monitors will be connected and they'll have to have significantly lower DPIs than the built-in display. But I'm not $1300 curious. ;^>
It's a trap... by tgv · 2013-02-26 20:41 · Score: 1

I've already said it when Google launched Chrome: they are trying to tie the users in. Sooner or later, they're going to offer a product that is exclusively available in Chrome. They're going to do better gaming in Chrome (Javascript is too slow; think how nice Farmville can look!). That time seems to have come. And once accepted, there's no way back, and the masses will be logged into their google account forever.
1. Re:It's a trap... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  I've already said it when Google launched Chrome: they are trying to tie the users in. Sooner or later, they're going to offer a product that is exclusively available in Chrome. They're going to do better gaming in Chrome (Javascript is too slow; think how nice Farmville can look!). That time seems to have come. And once accepted, there's no way back, and the masses will be logged into their google account forever.
  How ironic that 95% of those users perma-attached to their Google feeds will be using Chrome to login to Facebook, only to have their online world distorted even more by that fucked-up view of reality.
  Don't be so dramatic. There are plenty of utter failure points to go around. They are mere shepherds tending the flocks of the world, and are thus insignificant to those who are not gullible sheep.
2. Re:It's a trap... by csumpi · 2013-02-27 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  But... Chrome is the best browser. At least best for me, it's fast, allows me to block ads and other crap through extensions, web pages render as expected and it doesn't crash ever. So if it will display Office documents in the browser, it will just be better. Maybe the point here is to make Chrome better?
When will MS get Touch Office out the door? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 20:49 · Score: 1

What struck me about Surface RT was it came with MS Office but didn't support touch. Indeed the Office division barely ported it across with only a few tweaks (they boasted about turning off the cursor blink as if that was a big thing!). The whole OS seemed to have been botched to run the desktop version of Office.
It's like Microsoft are lazy or have corporate inertia.
So whether Google delivers a successful Office port for Chrome is not as important as whether they deliver a touch version. Because a touch version would easily port to Android and be across everything. Then MS's second cash cow would also be under attack (think Windows 8 vs Android).
1. Re:When will MS get Touch Office out the door? by gl4ss · 2013-02-26 21:19 · Score: 2
  
  What struck me about Surface RT was it came with MS Office but didn't support touch. Indeed the Office division barely ported it across with only a few tweaks (they boasted about turning off the cursor blink as if that was a big thing!). The whole OS seemed to have been botched to run the desktop version of Office.
  It's like Microsoft are lazy or have corporate inertia.
  So whether Google delivers a successful Office port for Chrome is not as important as whether they deliver a touch version. Because a touch version would easily port to Android and be across everything. Then MS's second cash cow would also be under attack (think Windows 8 vs Android).
  previously MS ui kits were built _FOR_ office(so what if it was practically 20 years ago).
  because that makes sense, you know, because otherwise the office team has to hack an ui on top of an ui kit not suitable at all for building a text processor.
  aaaaaand that's what they have to do with metro.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This is just the beginning! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 22:36 · Score: 0

Yes, this is insanely great!!! Now just if they could only have, like, a way of getting all them cool appz from Android to run!
I dunno, like, having 'Chromium' or something being able to run, like, appz and access my data when my interwebz is busted??
Maybe they could call it Google's Not Unix?
2013 is gonna be the year of Ginux on the tablet!!!
Well, not until IE has it by coder111 · 2013-02-26 23:04 · Score: 4, Informative

I'd love to have programming-language agnostic scripting on a broser- PNaCl looks quite interesting. However, application development on the browser can only advance as quickly as IE features advance. IE still has huge marketshare, so if your website (web-app to be more precise) doesn't run on IE, you are excluding a huge customer base. This is all changing quickly with tablets and mobiles (which mostly run webkit) but IE is still very big. This will put pressure on Microsoft, and hopefully these features will get incorporated into IE sooner or later.

In my opinion the whole application on a browser thing happened because MS has (had?) a monopoly on desktop. So if you wanted to develop something cross-platform that has a UI, you had following options:

* Do it in a cross platform language that has UI programming. The only one I know is Java. 10 years ago, computers were much slower, and Java on desktop was quite worse than it is right now, so this would result in sub-par applications.

* Do it in C/C++ and use a cross-platform tookit. The only ones worth talking about are wxWidgets and Qt, and again, 10 years ago they weren't mature. On top of that you need to deal with tons of "backend" programming hassles, as windows is not really posix compatible. Again, cross-plaform toolkits like Qt or wxWidgets help here, but only some.

* Use some kind of thin client technology and do all the heavy lifting on the server. This basically evolved into a web server + a browser as a thin client. And until AJAX, your applications could not offer much interactivity.

All thigs considered, for many things browser-as-a-thin-client model makes a lot of sense. You always get the latest version immediately, you don't need to install anything (installing/removing/updating software is a huge hassle on windows. I'm appalled windows still doesn't have any package management and repositories). You get decent security- you can trust a web page will not screw up your computer (well, except some exploits in the browswer, but that's nothing compared to installing and running a native app from untrusted source).

Looking back I always think if this could have been done better. HTML+JS is quite nasty from an application development point of view. First of all, JS works differently on different browsers, and these differences are hardly documented. Things like GWT or jQuery help, but the problem is still there. Again, Microsoft and IE screw things up badly for everyone time and time again. Another two things- running inside a browser you don't have propper networking support and access to local storage. Both are required for complex interactive applications. HTML5 is an attempt to improve both, but it remains to be seen how successful it is. HTML/CSS layout is hard. There are still few to none WYSIWYG tools to drag and drop UI elements and construct a web-app in this way. And web-apps have a different look & feel than native apps- you still need to think in terms of URLs, "back" buttons, tabs, browser menus, etc. And not all hotkeys work either.

In general, I think a browser using HTML/JS/HTTP is a bad to mediocre thin client for applications. The only reason its so widely used is because it comes preinstalled on all new computers/tablets/mobiles shipped. If Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, it would have been possible to ship some other better thin-client with all the machines sold, and we would not have to deal with all this mess. I would probably prefer to have a browser just for reading PAGES, and a dedicated thin client for running remote apps. Hopefully things will get better with HTML5, and Microsoft has less influence on internet standards these days...

Sorry for the long rant,
--Coder
Pick two of these three by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 23:14 · Score: 0

* $1300
* Notebook
* "Almost as fast"
Is it just me, or should you never have all three of those aspects bundled together in a device you hope to be profitable in today's market place?
Inefficient by Captain_Chaos · 2013-02-26 23:58 · Score: 1

OK, so their plan is to replace the OS with a really inefficient OS? What could possibly go wrong?!
Need laptop advice ... by jon3k · 2013-02-27 02:21 · Score: 1

So I want a laptop with a REALLY nice REALLY high res display, a great keyboard and trackpad. The touchscreen shit I don't really care about. Other than a Macbook Pro 13" retina for $200 more, what are my options other than the Pixel? Everyone seems to hate the Pixel, so what are my options? It seemed like throwing Ubuntu on the Pixel made the most sense to me.
1. Re:Need laptop advice ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  So I want a laptop with a REALLY nice REALLY high res display, a great keyboard and trackpad. The touchscreen shit I don't really care about. Other than a Macbook Pro 13" retina for $200 more, what are my options other than the Pixel? Everyone seems to hate the Pixel, so what are my options? It seemed like throwing Ubuntu on the Pixel made the most sense to me.
  For your $200, you get four times the SSD space, twice the RAM, and a faster CPU. Plus a REALLY nice, REALLY high res display, a great keyboard, and a great trackpad. Unless you really don't care about speed or storage, you should just give up the $200.
  http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-does-the-chromebook-pixel-stack-up-against-a-macbook-pro-and-samsungs-chromebook/
Heh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 06:14 · Score: 0

For $1300, I can get a fully functioning laptop that doesn't let Google index ALL my stuff...
Re:Translation - ActiveX re-invented! Whooptidoo by terjeber · 2013-02-27 09:47 · Score: 1

Or, to put it shorter, Google discovered that users are skeptical to this JavaScript cloud-based stuff, so the invented ActiveX. You know, since that was such a brilliant idea. Sheesh!
What this article should have really said by luisdmaya · 2013-02-28 05:56 · Score: 1

The news is that CROS users will now have a native app to read and edit MS Office docs. Until now, CROS users would have to: download them, then upload them to Drive, then see a limited read-only version.

Since it's in NaCl you can count on the app being orders-of-magnitude faster than if written in some other technology.

Pixel is not part of the story, but it does add more readership to the article.

In summary, Chromebooks and Chromeboxes are getting more and more serious for low-end and high-end users at home, school, and work.